%!TEX root = /Users/dejean/Documents/ITU/2aar/MAIG-E2011/exam_project/report/simmar_report.tex
\section{Discussion}
Both the NEAT and XCS agents perform better than \emph{RandomAgent}, but none of them perform better than \emph{ForwardJumpingAgent}, by looking at the means without further analysis. Further justification of this hypothesis would require carrying out a T-Test, which was not done.

In any case, the performance of the two agents is not particularly impressive. The jump-and-shoot strategy goes a long way at difficulty 0, but falls short when the environment gets increasingly populated and varied at higher difficulties.

Only the NEAT agent comes close to exceeding \emph{ForwardJumpingAgent}. This is not too surprising as the first evolutionary run of the NEAT agent already showed that jumping alone would be sufficient to pass a level on the easiest difficulty, and none of the agents are fully developed yet to deal with all the challenges that are present on higher difficulties.

The XCS agent has the worst performance of the two. A big factor in this is the faulty jumping behaviour. A lot of effectiveness is lost when the agent is jumping up and down in front of obstacles, and it also leaves him vulnerable to enemies coming from behind and dropping from above.

Implementing XCS and assuring it was working correctly took quite some time. It would have been much faster to use an existing framework, and this would have allowed us to work more on representing the Mario environment.